responses to Madhyamaka

[sherabzangpo]

Shakya Chokden, a well-known Zhentong author of the Sakya school, made a big deal about how Chittamatra and Yogacara are not the same thing, in many of his texts. Chittamatra is thus still lower than Madhyamaka but Yogacara is on par or even superior to Madhyamaka (I am not sure about his system in detail).

This line of thought is arguably differentiating between less ontologically accurate Chittamatra substantialism and a view that is more like Yogacara-Madhyamaka (such as perhaps Shantarakshita); I often think that the Zhentong people are getting at something like Yogacara-Madhyamaka, but that's debatable.

I tend to think that generally Prasangika-Madhyamaka makes more sense from a logical/epistemological POV and Yogacara-Madhyamaka or even just Yogacara from an experiential/psychological POV.

[Greg]

Perhaps it is best to start with the Sarvastivadins? It is interesting, is it not, that the triumphalist perspective - which is principally a 'triumph' over the Sarvastivadin ontology - has no living exponents, few if any scholarly defenders, few if any scholars who really 'get it.'

Almost everyone who reads the Sarvastivadins are already committed Madhyamikas....which is hardly a fair philosophical or hermeneutical strategy. Myself included, probably you included!

I think it is hard to understand without being a specialist in Abhidharma. There are some good journal articles though - Williams, P.M.; 'On the Abhidharma Ontology' in Journal of Indian Philosophy is an excellent starting place.

It is interesting that we seem to have so few late Sarvastivadin texts defending the tradition against Mahayana polemics. Did they not bother for some reason? Seems unlikely. Have they been lost? Perhaps - I could see why they wouldn't have been translated into Tibetan or Chinese.

[greentara]

In the progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness and void..... Ramana Maharshi says "first one sees the self as objects, then one sees the self as void, then one sees the self as self, only in this last there is no seeing because seeing is being"

[White Lotus]

Ramana Marharshis realization of the self is: ME. however one must reach forward to no self, beyond self. ME is more advanced than the I AM, notion. Socrates said ''know thyself''. buddha said know that ultimately all these 'self' experiences and notions are impermanent and therefore not truly real. No self. to have realised ME or the higher self is very simple but also very advanced. still however deluded as to the ultimate truth of the no nature of things. best wishes, Tom.

[Greg]

I had forgotten about

Dharmapala's Yogacara Critique of Bhavaviveka's Madhyamika Explanation of Emptiness
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75997289/Dhar ... -Emptiness

[Greg]

Here is another very glancing source:

"On the contrary, evidence is not wanting to the point that bitter quarrels were going on between the followers of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. We learn from the biography of Hsüan-tsang that a South Indian brāhmaṇa, an old scholar of the Hinayana, Prajñāgupta by name, had composed a treatise in 700 verses
"against the Great Vehicle", and that Hsüan-tsang had to compose a similar polemical work in 1,600 verses in order to refute the same. The book written by Hsüan-tsang was entitled "the destruction of heresy." Thus the Saṃmitīya sect, to which Prajñāgupta belonged, was treated as heretical." Joshi, Lalmai. Studies in the Buddhistic Culture of India. 1987. p. 171

Hard to even imagine what a Pudgalavādin criticism of Madhyamaka would look like. I can't imagine the text survived, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hsüan-tsang's response did - perhaps it could be reconstructed from that.